I agree...but I also know that when some use the idea that “belief” makes it so it caan get very hairy convincing them otherwise....and I will say this again...the “experience” they have, regardless of the truth of it or not....will get in the way of reality.
We can tear apart wording and what we think an “expereince” might be or not...if one “senses “ anything or not etc.....the idea is they “Believe” it and therefore it is real to them regardless if it is somethign obviously bogus to others.
That is simply a bogus characterization of my argument. We have not gotten to the point of discussing whether the doctrine is true. I'm trying to get across what it is, whether true or not.
Let's review: YOUR SIDE, in obvious ignorance of what we actually teach and in spite of links to the Summa on the topic and of frequent citations of hymns by Aquinas, insists that the doctrine necessitates a perceptible change in the "species."
Now let's stop right here. Does seeing the sunrise make the sun come up?
Nowhere did I say, not in one place, I defy you to show me a place where I said that believe made it true or made it happen. That is nonsense.
YOUR side repeatedly brought up the manner of "apprehending" the change, NOT of causing it or verifying it or of proving the doctrine.
The doctrine, whether true or not, teaches that the change is objective, but apprehended by faith alone. Faith does not MAKE the change, faith does not PROVE the change. The change, IF we are right, is only apprehended by faith. That is all I am saying.
Consequently so suggest that there is anything at all in my argument that says either that the change happens because of faith or that the doctrine is true because of faith is to demonstrate that the argument has not been understood -- WHETHER you agree with it or not.
I am astonished.
I have to get ready for Church.